Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday July 12, 2010 @06:06PM
from the relatively-incriminating dept.

cremeglace writes "A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On July 7, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the 'Grim Sleeper.' The key evidence? A match between crime-scene DNA and the suspect's son, obtained by a search through the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons."

It's the usual "DNA testing helped us catch this serial killer. Obviously this means it's all safe and dandy and no privacy worries here!" article that gets wheeled out about once every couple of months, just in case someone was starting to have concerned thoughts about all that identifying material being available to the government and its underlings.

I'm rather sceptical about these articles these days because they do seem to appear so regularly to remind us all how lucky we are. Keep an eye out and you'

Before long we're going to need complete isolation suits before we can commit a crime.

Surely you are more clever than that. Everyone knows that as the equipment of law enforcement become more and more sophisticated, the trick is not to circumvent them, but to exploit them. What if you made some careful plants of other people's DNA? What would the robot do? Frame someone!

Hell, you could even make a double-bluff and plant extraordinary evidence of yourself there, that law enforcement would think, 'oh, it can't possibly be him, he's not that clumsy; he must have been framed!'. The options

Reminds me of the string of murders in a city nearby. They found all the victims strangled in their own bathtubs, covered in milk and Cheerios with a whole banana shoved into their throats. The police are pretty sure that it is a cereal killer.

It was good policework, and prior to that good reportage by one LA Weekly reporter that caught this guy. The high tech nature was used properly I believe. I'd rather see this sort of thing exonerate people than convict them, but given that in 1988 an 18 year old was found dead 10 blocks south of where I live... 99.99% chance killed by this guy... I'm glad he's off the streets.

Oh, but you can. There's over 100 mutations in the genome per generation, so between any two siblings there's up to 200 differences. A complete genome decode would therefore certainly allow you to identify an individual. However, the police don't use genome decodes. They use much cruder methods of comparing individuals which will produce a fair number of false positives. Having said that, if you think you have privacy concerns now, wait until the police DO start using full genome decodes. And sooner or later they will. It's inevitable. Higher-grade intelligence, plus extra goodies like knowing what chemicals you might be sensitive to, is bound to eventually become too tempting. The technology will need to be cheaper and quicker, but that's just a matter of time.

I'm also expecting this kind of DNA work to be coupled with more sophisticated chemical analysis. If, as has been claimed, you can identify where a person has been by the chemical traces in their body, then some samples (such as blood) will likely contain those same traces. Once it becomes cost-effective and time-effective to extract that kind of extra information, it seems certain that it will become routine.

(It is unclear just how far you can go back, or with what level of detail, as far as geographic chemical tracing goes, but as some chemicals accumulate whereas others have a definite half-life in the body, it would make sense to say that geographical tracing has the potential to get fairly complex with time.)

There may well be other sources of information that have yet to be discovered or for which there are no tests (or at least, none that are well-known). For example, if there's a blood sample, it will likely contain red blood cells and may even contain trapped air molecules. That may tell you a little about the air quality at the time, placing additional constraints on both time and place of origin. No idea if it would be all that useful or cost-effective, but that's largely immaterial in comparison to the fact that clearly it is possible to imagine that further tests could exist. Once you know they can exist, you know that sooner-or-later they will exist.

(I'd be rather happier if there was a little more in the way of community policing versus some of the current practices, and if justice was a little more about balancing crime prevention via therapy and rehabilitation against the apparent need in society for revenge and retribution. It seems to me that if the criminal justice system had less reasons to be hostile, there would be less inclination to abuse that system from within. There will always be a lunatic fringe, but the smaller it is, the safer it will be to have such technology where it needs to be.)

DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.

I'm not saying he is innocent, but i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that he is guilty either.

In fact we may need to use SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) to be good enough for a database of millions (or eventually billions) to reduce collisions to acceptable levels.

DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.

The collision is a problem only if both are plausible suspects:

The Korean War vet in a California hospice is almost certainly not the serial rapist and killer who has been stalking women in New Jersey the past six months.

Yes, but often the defendant and *his brother* are both potential suspects.

This actually came up in a case I served on a jury for. The defense argued that the *other* brother could well have committed the crime, and given the poor quality of DNA evidence, we couldn't disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size. [...] The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation.

Correct, I suppose, but perhaps misleading. Your objection does not, I believe, lead to a rational conclusion that convictions based on false-positives will rise, huge budgets squandered, or other similar troubles occur. Once police are sufficiently interested in a small handful of individuals, after they take the dozens or hundreds of hits from a familial search and narrow them by conventional detective work, I'm sure much more thorough tests are available to conclusively check just a few people against th

The feds and states have been working hard to ensure there are no known collision rates above zero by prohibiting searches of the database to see just how bad it is. The LA Times has a nice writeup about the problem. [latimes.com] Basically they don't want scientists doing blind studies because it shows DNA isn't absolute especially for cases that have no other evidence.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, any collision rate that is likely to save more victims (by executing the correct killer) than it kills (by executing the incorrect killer) is a net positive.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't try to continue to improve your negative failures (false acquittals) and positive failures (false convictions) after you reach that net positive point, but that's the time at which it makes sense to use the results of the evidential method by utilitarian ethics.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, executing anybody who is likely to consume more than they produce over the remainder of their life is a net-positive for society. That is almost exactly the definition of fascism.

I'm sorry, if some guy goes out and kills somebody, I can't do anything about that but try to catch him. However, if I support a law that lets my government kill innocent people as long as it is likely that they'll have a net savings of life then I'm the one with blood on my hands.

I'm not even really a big opponent of the death penalty. However, clearly it can't be applied in a utilitarian way.

I know our gut tells us that when we act and it results in death it's worse than when we fail to act and it results in death, but I think our gut's wrong.

Such a position is very problematic. For instance, it makes the CEO of a drug company that fails to manufacture and distribute a malaria drug (say for profit-related reasons) worse than Stalin or Hitler, by virtue of more people dying as a result his inaction.And how do you decide who's guilty in a case of non-action, since clearly if someone dies as a res

Which of your examples do you think demonstrates a flaw in my assertion? Obviously people (including me) are not built to act from the heart on the ethical stance I'm talking about, but I see no reason someone in the position to easily stamp out malaria, but who chooses not to do so purely for reason of profit, is any less responsible for those deaths than if he killed them himself.

Of course, once you start discussing real world examples of that kind of situation, things get much more complicated: the CEO

Familial searches from a DNA database the size of the one in California are very, very likely to produce false positives. For example, a study of the Arizona CODIS database carried out in 2005 showed that approximately 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci, that approximately 1 in every 1,489 profiles matched at 10 loci, 1 in 16,374 profiles matched at 11 loci, and 1 in 32,747 matched at 12 loci. http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html [maa.org]

With California currently having the third largest DNA database in the world, the odds of ANY new genetic evidence matching on a cold search is way too likely.

They said they had 200 familial matches. They then did investigative work on that to bring the number down, then tested the male Y chromosomes of the matches to see if any matched the Y found at the crime scene. There was one and only one final match. So a two-factor familial test had a zero false positive rate (first markers, plus extra Y testing). Yes, the initial run did get lots of matches, but they tested one and only one person as a result, and he was a 100% match.

If you don't want to have your DNA taken, then don't give it to anyone else. That includes progeny. Otherwise, anyone sampling your progeny's DNA will be able to get a guess as to yours. Though in this case, my understanding is that they had his DNA from a crime scene, but not on file. The partial hit got them to narrow down the search to a specific family, where they identified the most likely offender and tested him for a direct match.

Hmmm... we have some DNA... Good, let's just send it to the lab and throw that guy in jail. No need to vet it. Look judge... the DNA matched!!!

Moral of the story, if your going to be a serial killer you need to find a dupe that is pretty straight and unlikely to have too many dealings with the law and mostly a loner and plant his DNA at all the crime scenes.

they had a guy four square for a brutal rape, but the guy was unconcerned. sure enough, the dna test came back and turned out he only shared half the dna with the culprit: the murderer must be the guy's brother

so they let him loose and track down brother after brother, sample his dna, and it turns out to be yet another brother. meanwhile, the woman who was raped is murdered, and they find a hair on her body that matches the original suspect's dna 100%

while examining the original suspect again, grissom sees that his skin is strangely mottled, and he has an interesting statue in his house: the legendary greek chimera

grissom cracks the case: the guy committed the rape because he knew he was a genetic chimera. the dna of his semen was the "brother" of the dna of his blood

a genetic chimera is an extremely rare individual in which fraternal twin zygotes are created, then fuse. so different organ lines in the body are from two different "individuals". you are your own twin, you are a mix of two people. there is also the real life case of a woman who became a criminal suspect because she was suspected of kidnapping: she claimed to be the mother of a child, but a genetic test reveals she was the aunt: her own ovaries weren't hers but from her "phantom sister"

not that this is an argument against how they caught the grim sleeper, i applaud this use of genetic profiling of relatives to solve crimes. its simple sleuthwork, and plenty of innocent people come under suspicion all the time in criminal investigations that must be ruled out with basic detective work

Non-violent sociopaths can stay. They have enough self control, intellect, reasoning ability, and impulse control to be non-violent. Most of the sociopaths running fortune 500 companies aren't serial killers, or rapists.

Now if we find out a fetus has both violent genetics, and will be a sociopath, we should allow the parents the liberty to decide to shut off these genes. If the parents want to raise a sociopath it's on them, but I don't know any parent who wants to raise a serial killer, and if we knew who

Most of the sociopaths running fortune 500 companies aren't serial killers, or rapists.

True, but that wouldn't stop them from hiring that work out if it were profitable, and if they thought they could get away with it. The main difference between a criminal and a business genius is that one understands more intricately the phrase "plausible deniability."

Most of the sociopaths running fortune 500 companies aren't serial killers, or rapists.

True, but that wouldn't stop them from hiring that work out if it were profitable, and if they thought they could get away with it. The main difference between a criminal and a business genius is that one understands more intricately the phrase "plausible deniability."

It doesn't take a sociopath to be capable of that. Given the right situation and if most of us could get away with it, we'd hire the work out just as quickly and as easily as the sociopathic CEO. The only difference is the sociopathic CEO would have more money to do that with and wouldn't have any ethical standards or rules as to when to use that power (therefore it would be abused).

None of the ideas which would actually work are popular. Doing anything to save the environment isn't popular. Doing anything about population growth is not popular.

But if we decide which ideas are good or bad based on whats popular this would explain why we are dying. I mean if we decide it's a good idea to continue giving birth to serial killers, and mentally retarded children when we could decide to have perfectly healthy children, sure it might not be a popular idea but it's still right.

Because they will start "curing" homosexuality, skin color, or whatever happens to be unpopular at the moment.

I'm not advocating having the government decide. I'm saying the woman should be able to decide if she wants to give birth to a serial killing rapist or not. The woman should be able to decide if she wants to give birth to a mentally retarded child or not. The woman should be able to decide or choose which genes to activate in regards to homosexuality, skin color, or any of that, just as the parent gets to choose the name of the child.

Really interesting story about a neuroscientist who studies the links between genes, neurobiology, and crime. He's always argued that genes determine behavior: serial killers are killers because of their genes and their brain structure. But one day, at the family barbecue, he learns that his family tree is full of violent criminals and killers, including the infamous axe-murderess Lizzy Borden. So as an experiment, he decides to do genetic testing and brain scans on his family. His mother, his siblings, his kids: all normal. No abnormal genes. No unusual brain activity. Except for *one* family member, one person who was tested and who has both the abnormal genes and abnormal brain activity linked with sociopathic behavior. The person? It's the researcher himself.

So, assuming the dude doesn't have a freezer full of dead hookers we haven't found out about, that would seem to argue that it's a little simplistic to argue that a gene or genes automatically turn you into a serial killer. Studies of mental disorders have long shown that these things are complicated. If you have an identical twin who's schizophrenic, odds are pretty good that you're going to be schizophrenic- but it's not even close to 100% of the time, it's more like 50%.

Let's look at this practically, though. Say that you find out your mother, your father, your brother, or your sister has a gene that is linked with sociopathic behavior. Should they be locked up or prevented from reproducing? What if a routine screening discovered that you had that gene?

As it shouldn't be. The world as a whole does not have an overpopulation problem, nor is it likely to develop one.

Which just brings up the fundamental flaw in your plan: what authority gets to decide who gets born? And why would you trust them?

The economy proves otherwise. If there were not a population problem there would be enough jobs to hire everybody born multiple times over, and we'd be on a path to always have more jobs than population as the job growth would at least correlate with if not surpass the population growth.

Does that look like its happening? No it's not.

And what authority gets to decide who gets to be born? The women who give birth. And yes I t rust them. My mother had the option to abort me and chose not to. If I were going to

Why not just kill off all the family members of serial killers? I mean, if it's being caused by a gene, then all these people should be at least carriers of the gene. If we kill them all, we can eradicate the gene fro the gene pool and we'll never have serial killers ever again! Yeah, this is just as logical, effective, and ethical as your proposed solutions. Which is to say, not at all.

The punishment involved the execution of close and extended family members.[3][20] These included:

The criminal's living parents
The criminal's living grandparents
Any children the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Any grandchildren the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Siblings and siblings-in-law (the siblings of the criminal and that of his or her spouse, in the case where he or she is married)
Uncles of the criminal, as well as their spouses
The criminal himself

Of course, for a complete wipe you'd want to get nieces and nephews too, a group strangely absent from the list of executed.

Cripes, that sounds like my crazy elderly dad. He thinks they should kill a murderer's family (you know, the people who *didn't* do the crime) in front of him. I keep explaining to him that serial killers are sociopaths who won't *care* if you kill their family (or even get off on it), but no go.

If you had a serial killer in your family that makes you into a victim just by the fact that you have a serial killer in your family. It ruins your family reputation and dishonors your family be default.

No I don't think killing the families of serial killers would work because you cannot kill a bad gene. The only thing you can do about a bad gene which probably exists in most families, is to allow most families to have the option to give birth to offspring without having that gene activate itself. Also it'

Since detection will come long before treatment, I suspect the interim "cure" would be to puree and vacuum the fetus.

In experiments we have shut off specific genes in mice and these mice have lived healthy lives. What if we could shut off the gene that produces rapists and serial killers? We would have a choice as to do something then and there, or wait until the serial killer/rapist victimizes hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.

Why should we wait for the symptoms when we can cure the disease in the womb?

We could also shut off the gene that makes us eat to much junk food. We could shut off the gene that makes people like Brittaney Spears. Finally, I would love it if we could shut off the gene that makes people annoying and unable to understand that some things in life are complicated and not black and white.

Biology, despite the movies, really doesn't work that way. You may find a gene... that gives them a 4% chance of being a serial killer, perhaps. Maybe. We think. But there is a good chance you won't find anything at all. Its not all in the DNA (epigenetics, nurture vs nature etc.)

We have found certain genes already. We have done experiments on mice already, not in regards to serial killers in specific but in general we have cured many diseases through gene therapy already.

So the question is should we stop stem cell research? should we stop genetic research? or should we actually look for the genes which are responsible for the diseases we want to cure and see if we can treat these illnesses in the fetus stage?

It's cheaper to treat disease in the fetus stage. It's also less damaging

The leap from "we have found certain genes that affected certain traits" to "it is possible to find a gene that makes a person a serial killer" is quite big. Furthermore, will that gene make everyone who has it a serial killer? What if it's partly genetics, partly environmental? Should we treat people with the gene who have not killed anyone as criminals?

The leap from "we have found certain genes that affected certain traits" to "it is possible to find a gene that makes a person a serial killer" is quite big. Furthermore, will that gene make everyone who has it a serial killer? What if it's partly genetics, partly environmental? Should we treat people with the gene who have not killed anyone as criminals?

It's very much like if we found a gene which creates a high probability of autism, or a gene which creates a high probability of some other mental illness, if we could deactivate that gene in the fetus or if we could screen fetuses for that gene so that only healthy fetuses are born, why shouldn't we give parents the option to do it?

Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?

Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?

Were it possible, I would agree with you. It isn't. And isn't likely to be in the future either.

Look, your argument seems to be that:A) Serial killers possess a common mental illness.B) This illness is genetic (as in, 100% genetic with no other factors, like down syndrome)C) Prenatal screening will one day be able to test for this illness, allowing a serial killer to be aborted or fixed in utero.

Is this correct? Have I got your argument right?

Now, the problem with this is B. Serial killers likely do share a common, rare mental illness. There is no evidence that it is genetic. In point of fact, most mental illnesses aren't genetic to begin with, as they're non-selective traits.

Illnesses like down syndrome are the exception, not the rule. Down syndrome is 100% genetic, without fail. Autism (to use an example you yourself brought up) is more typical; we've known about it for decades now, studied it extensively, and still don't know for sure what causes it. It's likely a constellation of factors, possibly including more than one distinct diagnosis based on causes that we aren't yet equipped to identify.

In other words, and if you take nothing else from my post please, please understand this, it is very likely that no serial killer gene or genes exist. You cannot screen for genetic factors in a non-genetic illness.

I refuse to accept that behavior can be absolutely governed by genes (and your article makes a very similar point). Besides, if we shut off the gene for violence, assuming such a thing exists, what would the result look like? It might be unable to detect or react to danger, or it might exhibit some mutant form of restraint so paralyzing that it can't do anything at all.
Disease is one thing, but manipulating behavior through genetics seems dangerous. Perhaps when we have a complete understanding of our DNA,

Tendencies are the result of genes. Not behavior, but tendencies. So a person who has the tendencies of a serial killer is born at risk for becoming a serial killer.

Just like a person can have a sexual attraction but never really have sex, having that sexual attraction puts them at increased risk for having sex. If a person is born with an inability to control their impulses, they are basically disabled mentally. This is genetically influenced even if they never become a serial killer, their quality of life

Well it is not as morally/intellectually as easy as you seem to think it is to start messing what it is to be human.and I am sure a lot of it is not genes but learned behavior.While we might be able to turn off humans violent tendencies, violence does have its uses.Without some violence who can say what we would be unable to cope with.and their is a difference between someone able to kill someone and someone that will kill someone else.

Well it is not as morally/intellectually as easy as you seem to think it is to start messing what it is to be human.and I am sure a lot of it is not genes but learned behavior.While we might be able to turn off humans violent tendencies, violence does have its uses.Without some violence who can say what we would be unable to cope with.and their is a difference between someone able to kill someone and someone that will kill someone else.

The point is that serial killers are violent for no reason, for no cause, for no purpose other than to get a thrill. They are like individuals who torture for the fun of it. How is this trait useful for a society as modern as ours? If it were so useful we wouldn't be putting them in cages.

So the trait isn't considered useful by society. So let individual parents turn the trait off if they don't want a serial killing rapist in their family. This does not erase the gene from the gene pool, it simply deactivat

"The point is that serial killers are violent for no reason, for no cause, for no purpose other than to get a thrill. They are like individuals who torture for the fun of it. How is this trait useful for a society as modern as ours? If it were so useful we wouldn't be putting them in cages."

Is that all that different from liking action movies, FPS, or in an extreme case possibly even being able to enjoy meat?

And I doubt that genes dictate the reason, Humans like being violent (to varying degrees) it is this

There may well be genes that impact the propensity to become a serial killer, but, even if there are, its not at all inconceivable that one that slightly increases the propensity to be a serial killer also has all kinds of socially beneficial effects, too, and that which effects manifest in any particular person vary based on environmental, rather than genetic, circumstances.

There may well be genes that impact the propensity to become a serial killer, but, even if there are, its not at all inconceivable that one that slightly increases the propensity to be a serial killer also has all kinds of socially beneficial effects, too, and that which effects manifest in any particular person vary based on environmental, rather than genetic, circumstances.

If we find the one gene or series of genes which cause the disease, why not shut those genes off?

What is the social benefit of serial killing rapists? I'd like to know. Lack of impulse control? How is that good? Lack of discipline? Lack of a conscience? Whats the social benefit in any environment and if there were one why do these individuals end up caged up or dead?

If we find the one gene or series of genes which cause the disease, why not shut those genes off?

I direct you to my response to GP (well, with the "their/there" error corrected):

Why don't they find the serial killer gene instead?

Because there probably isn't one.

What is the social benefit of serial killing rapists?

I never said there was a social benefit of becoming a serial killer of any kind; I said that (because links between genes and behavior are rarely simple) its quite likely that if there is a gene or set of genes that increases the overall likelihood of someone with it becoming a serial killer, the same gene or set of genes could quite possibly also have other effects, which are socially beneficial. Whether in any particular person the undesirable effects, the desirable effects, both, or neither manifest could be (as is often the case) determined not by the genetics alone but the genetics combined with environmental triggers.

Or there is, but epigenetics [wikipedia.org] plays a role in turning the gene on. So the gene may be present in a large part of the population (good luck filtering it out), but its not expressed in most of the carriers.

Its also possible that, even though this gene is turned on by some environmental condition, its continued expression can be handed down through several generations. So now, we's have to weed out those with the gene plus those exposed to the environmental switch. Plus descendants for several generations. Label someone as a risk because of what their grandfather did? Good luck with that.

So based on the fact we can cure certain forms of immunodeficiency, blindness, deafness, and colourblindness, you conclude that there is/are (a) genes that controls whether someone will become a serial killer and can be altered without substantial side effects?

That's one hell of an unfounded leap. All of those conditions have known mechanisms of action (we know exactly what doesn't work properly) and have found the gene(s) is/are responsible for them. We have neither for serial killers/violent offenders, and I highly doubt there is any gene or set of genes that gives any reasonable probability of one becoming a serial killer or violent offender.

Even if there is a genetic root, current evidence shows it is massively correlated to environmental conditions. Here in Canada, a large percentage of dangerous offenders (criminals with long, violent histories serving indeterminate sentences) have Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

Good idea. Remove all the genes that cause violent tendencies. Then what? We have a population of passive idiots sitting around, waiting for a conqueror to come in. If the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Mexicans all decline to conquer this country, then we'll just have to wait for Alien or Predator to do it.

Despite common "wisdom", without violence we would be an entirely different creature. Some of those creatures have been examined in various science fiction novels. Personally, I don't

Just deactivated. And also if less fetuses are born with these genes active you'll have less risk of any of that.

Whether or not someone is aggressive or not has nothing to do with genetics. An aggressive person is aggressive because of a situation provoking it. A serial killer is not provoked into being a serial killer, they are born with the innate lust for killing defenseless animals. They might start killing pets and work their way up to persons.

Explain how being violent, impulsive, and sociopathic can help in anything? Even if they never become a serial killer they probably wont live to be 21 because they'll still be violent, impulsive, and will likely get into trouble which gets them killed or locked up.

The point is parents should have the right to decide if they want to raise a child who is disabled or not. It should be a choice parents are given, do they want to raise a child who has a high likelihood of becoming a rapist or serial ki

"Explain how being violent, impulsive, and sociopathic can help in anything?"

I can see that you place no value in having a military force, prepared to defend you. While so many people whine and cry about violent tendencies, more knowledgable people work toward channeling violent tendencies into useful pursuits. Without violent tendencies, what kind of world do you think that you would be living in today? Go on - use your imagination. Can't do it? Alright - I'll TELL YOU. You'd be just another fucking

Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.

Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussi

Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.

Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussion perfectly.

Why is it stupid? If we could cure sickle cell, or any other genetic disease would this be considered stupid? Why have gene therapy and stem cell research at all if the goals are all stupid?

It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.

It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"

It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.

It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"

Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.

Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.

He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that both down syndrome and psychopathy are genetic, and that as we can detect and prevent the former, so too should we be able to detect and prevent the latter. And I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.

My personal qualm with is not an ethical one, but a practical one. I sincerely doubt that the propensity for being a serial killer can be linked to a single gene, and I'm not even sure it can be described as genetic. Put simply, I do not think we will ever be able to screen for and prevent such traits.

The comparison to down syndrome is fundamentally incorrect, as down syndrome is entirely determined by a minor mutation on the gamete cell before conception leading to chromosomal trisomy. Meaning it's entirely caused by genetic, and not environmental, factors. Even if there is a genetic complex shared by all serial killers (which there is no evidence to suggest that I am aware of), it is likely that environmental factors in the killer-to-be's upbringing play a bigger role.

Abortion is short term. Long term solution is to find a way to shut off the gene that causes the disease to begin with. We cannot keep giving birth to these people only to put them in cages, thats a waste of money.

Because the so-called 'warrior gene' that's found in many violent offenders, is not entirely a bad thing. It usually (always?) needs to be coupled with a abusive childhood to lead to a life of violence. People wo have the former without the latter often end up be highly ambitions and very competitive. These traits often serve society very well. Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...

Because the so-called 'warrior gene' that's found in many violent offenders, is not entirely a bad thing. It usually (always?) needs to be coupled with a abusive childhood to lead to a life of violence. People wo have the former without the latter often end up be highly ambitions and very competitive. These traits often serve society very well. Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...

The warrior gene isn't the only gene involved. Warrior does not necessarily mean serial killer.

Also you don't know whether or not everyone with the warrior gene is sociopathic. If they have the gene and aren't sociopathic then they might be beneficial to society but if they are violent without a conscience to regulate their violent tendencies, they wont have the self control and discipline of a UFC champion.